Neiswanger v. City of Kansas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that operating an automobile while in a state of intoxication is per se negligence
• holding drunken driving in violation of statute is not merely malum prohibitum, but is malum in se
• holding drunken driving in violation of statute is not merely malum prohibitum, but is malum in se
• explaining that, under RSA 630:3, I, II, the culpability requirement of negligent homicide may be satisfied either by showing that a person caused the death of another negligently or by establishing that the person caused the death in the course of driving while under the influence
• rejecting overbreadth argument where, “[i]n prohibiting a person from causing death as a consequence of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, [the statute] does not infringe a protected freedom”
• to sustain a conviction for negligent homicide — DUI, the State must establish a causal connection between the person’s driving under the influence, the subsequent collision, and the resulting death

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).